Comprehensive Analysis of Chimeric Contigs in Viral Metagenomic Assembly
| Contig ID | Chimera Type | Confidence | Decision | Breakpoint | Evidence Types | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 1000 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,000, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 1000 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,000, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 1500 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,500, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1500 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,500, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1500 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,500, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 1000 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,000, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.79.
|
Click on the links below to view detailed analysis for each chimeric contig:
Chimeric contigs are detected using multiple complementary approaches:
Confidence scores range from 0-1, with higher scores indicating stronger evidence for the classification. Scores above 0.8 are considered high confidence, 0.5-0.8 medium confidence, and below 0.5 low confidence.